Pages

Sunday, 29 July 2018

I trust that
by now, many have heard about the New “Basic Law,” recently passed by the
Yisraeli Knesset. The law which is based on the essence of Medinat Yisrael, as
stated in our Declaration of Independence, changes nothing on the ground. It
merely anchors and reaffirms the essence of the Jewish state.

Members of
some minorities are up in arms protesting it. Thankfully, not all. Some, like
my dear friend, Atta Farhat, head of the Druze Zionist Council, a proud and
loyal Yisraeli Druz, supports and endorses it.

I spoke to
him yesterday afternoon. The following are his words.

“Yisrael is
the National Home of the Jewish People. This basic principle appears in all
basic national and international documents pertaining to the State of Yisrael,
starting with the Balfour Declaration, through the British Mandate, UN Resolution
181 and culminating in our Declaration of Independence.

Up until now, this principle was not
anchored in the Law. At the same time, Yisrael has always been committed to
provide, equal rights to all its citizens, regardless of race, religious creed,
race or gender.

The State of
Yisrael is a Jewish and Democratic state. Its Democratic nature is expressed in
a variety of laws and rulings of its Supreme Court. The basic laws including
the basic law honouring the dignity of Man and his freedom, stressed it. This
law merely focuses on the Jewish identity aspect of the Jewish state and
defines the need for self determination of the Jewish People in Eretz Yisrael.

The new law,
completes the basic law calling to honour Man and his freedom and does not
contradict it. It is nothing but another effort to cement those laws of the
State of Yisrael . It adds and will also include an identity clause.

The law also
anchors existing values and symbols which determine the nature of Medinat
Yisrael, its Holy Days as has been the practice from its inception. It
reaffirms the Law of Return, which reflects Yisrael as the National Homeland of
the Jewish People and which was recognized by the Supreme Court as an important
basic law. It gave these laws a constitutional status.

This Law
also states that Yisrael will open and strengthen Jewish settlements. This
springs out of the understanding that this is a National value towards
fulfilling the Zionist dream, a principle that has guided previous Yisraeli
governments. Similarly, and parallel to this, present and previous governments
have worked towards providing solutions in the non-Jewish sectors of the
Yisraeli population. The law does not aim at creating separate communities in
Yisrael based on religion and nationality.

Additionally,
the law sets practical objectives which express the core of Yisrael as the
National Home of the Jewish People: its emblem, its flag, its language and the
right of return, among others. It provides a guarantee by the state of Yisrael
to work and strengthen the connection between the Jewish People in Yisrael and
the Diaspora.

According to
this law, the Arabic language will receive a special status. Its inclusion in
state institutions will be stated in law. There is a clause in this new law
that ensures that the status of the Arabic language will not be hurt.

This law is
necessary, especially these days, when many try to shake the foundations of the
rights of the Jewish People to Medinat Yisrael to settle and live in its ancestral
and historical Homeland yet toil ceaselessly to recognize a Palestinian state.
This is hypocrisy and double standard and double moral.

Finally,
many of the clauses that appear in this Law appear in many other Western Democracies.

Those I
represent, myself included, oppose turning Yisrael into a “state of all of its
citizens,” its infiltrators as it poses a threat to the continued existence of
the Jewish state in Eretz Yisrael.

Finally, the Left and the NIF have joined hands to create
a rift between the Jewish People and our Fellow Druze.”

Friends, it is people like Fatta that Yisrael needs more of. Let us all join
hands and support him and the uphill battle that he is currently facing.

Tuesday, 24 July 2018

“Childhood
should be carefree, playing in the sun; not living a nightmare in the darkness
of the soul.” ― Dave Pelzer

Is there anyone here who does not recall the
song of joy that filled their heart upon seeing those brightly coloured rubber sacs inflated with air and then
sealed at the neck, used as a children's toy or a decoration?

We call them Balloons.

They have been an inseparable part of and associated with happy events and the celebration
of special milestones in our life. They come in different shapes, colours and
they generally carry a cheerful and optimistic atmosphere.

That is and should continue to be the sole purpose and sole use of balloons.

Some, unfortunately, have transformed
this token of bliss into a weapon of terror. They have burst the legacy of
these playthings and turned them into a nightmare, an inferno. We have witnessed
it in the recent antics of some Gazans as reflected in the thousands of acres
of scorched fields on the Yisraeli side of the border.

I cannot help but compare this new form of warfare to a similar phenomenon some had been through a couple of years ago. Surely, many remember the movie “It”
about an evil clown that causes havoc and destruction. Any child would tell us
that clowns are meant to bring only joy, laughter and pleasure. Imagine turning clowns, the source of bliss to
many children be it at parties or hospitals, into a subject of dread and apprehension.

Can we even begin to fathom the
effects of such antics on the hearts, minds and souls of those who witness the metamorphosis
of their childhood symbols of happiness and elation into a vision of
destruction and death? Do we even have the tools to measure the damage
inflicted upon young lives and the shattering of dreams of a bright future? How
will anyone ever be able to explain to them that at the end of the day, we have
failed them? Will we ever be able to rectify the denial of hope, of aspirations
and the fantasy lining of the fabric of their innocence - all privileges that
no child should be deprived of?

I was among those young souls a few
days during Operation “Protective Edge,” several years ago. I witnessed their
pale faces, their sad expressions. That was war. Every child knows that war is
bad. I doubt they have had any expectations then, even at their young tender
age.

However, to depict symbols of innocence, toys and tokens of joy and reassurance
and turn them into weapons of terror is a measure that NO children, wherever they
dwell, should ever experience.

Sunday, 15 July 2018

“And six branches shall extend from its sides, three branches
of the menorah out of one side, and three branches out of the other side” Shemot (Exodus) 25:32

Any
reader of chapter 25 in the Book of Shemot (Exodus) which is dedicated to the
customs associated with the Tabernacle, will quickly notice that much attention
is given to the description and the embossing of the fine details and ornaments
of the Menorah. Little or rather nothing is said about the shape of its six
branches nor its stand or base.

Why, some
may ask, the sudden interest in it?

Actually, it is not sudden. Many, and for a long time, have tried to discern
what the Temple Menorah really looked like.

Of course, we are all familiar with the one depicted on Titus’ Arch in Rome,
the one that was among the spoils of the Temple which were taken to Rome by the
Jewish slaves following the destruction of the Second Temple. Many would also
recognize that the emblem of the State of Yisrael, the Jewish Homeland, is fashioned
after it.

There are, so it seems, some
inconsistencies between what we have been familiar with and the description of
this holy Jewish symbol in traditional sources.

One of them is the
description of the Menorah given in the Book of Zechariah. It is different than
the one that stood in the First Temple. The one in Zechariah has an added
feature, a “bowl at the top,” which served as a vessel to hold the oil. - a detail that is not mentioned in the
instructions given to Moses at Mount Sinai.

That, however, is a minor detail
which is not given much attention in Jewish writings. The added “bowl,” can
probably be attributed to and be the result of a more developed version of the
original Menorah, a kind that might have been more widespread during second
Temple period.

What I find fascinating
about the Menorah, though, relates more to the shape of the branches and its
stand. The branches are generally illustrated as semi-circular in shape, as we can
see on Titus’ Arch.

Archaeological evidence, as
in many other incidences, helps us shed light on this issue. A Jewish coin, for
instance, minted in 40 BCE shows the Menorah as having curved branches thus
lending support to the suggestion that the Menorah had indeed semi – rounded branches.

Another archaeological revelation
which renewed interest in the shape of the Temple Menorah was the subject of a
Press Release by the Yisrael Antiquities Authority in August 2011. It announced
the discovery of “an engraving of the Temple Menorah on a stone object” (which I
personally saw) in a two millennia old drainage tunnel near the City of David.

The Authority’s release
went on to suggest that “a passerby who saw the Temple Menorah with his own
eyes….incised his impressions on a stone.” The drawing, albeit a crude one, clearly
shows that the branches are more straight than circular (the depiction of the
base proves that the passerby could have drawn curved lines had he witnessed
the Menorah as having rounded arms or branches).

Some Jewish sources
provide other insights into the question of the shape of the Menorah’s
branches. Rashi, for instance, suggests in one of his commentaries on the Torah
that the branches of the Menorah “extended upward in a diagonal.…” fashion
rather than in a curved, rounded one. The Rambam, like Rashi, though he never
makes any definitive statement concerning the branches,
shares his view on it. In his commentaries on the Mishneh Torah and Mishnah, he
adds drawings which leave no room for doubt. In them, he depicts the branches
as extending diagonally and in straight lines.

Rabbeinu Avraham, the
son of Maimonides, states: “The six branches... extended upward from the center
shaft of the menorah in a straight line, as depicted by my
father, and not in a semi-circle as depicted by others.”

As in the case of the
engraving found in the City of David and judging by the fact that the curvature
of the base is drawn so precisely, most likely with the aid of a compass, it is
apparent that the artist could just have easily drawn curved branches had he so
desired.

The base of the original Temple Menorah has also been a subject of
controversy for many years. The one carved on Titus’ Arch is very different
from the one found in the City of David. It also differs from the drawings attributed
to the Rambam. The excavators of
the City of David were quoted as saying that the graffito found in there “clarifies
[that] the base of the original [ancient] menorah … was apparently tripod
shaped.”

The unique, two-tiered, broad, solid and hexagonal Menorah base
depicted on Titus’ Arch, has led many to believe that it is nothing like the
Menorah would have looked like for two reasons. The first pertains to the fact
that the Greeks discovered all polygons much later, during the Pythagorean era.
Though, early Egyptians and ancient Chinese developed such geometry, it was
mostly used for navigational purposes.

The second, and a more germane
reason, relates to Jewish law. Archeologists concluded that some of the panels
of the Menorah carved on the Arch (though partially eroded), display creatures
such as eagles, sea serpents, dragons and other heathen images which Jews would
not have allowed to be present at the Temple.

Experts agree that there
is no reason to question the authenticity of the depiction in Titus’ Arch. Its
details and its size reflect the sculpture’s close familiarity with the Temple
vessels as described in the Tanach and various other Jewish sources.

The question, however, remains, how can the disparity between the
two representations of the Menorah base be compromised?

There is no doubt that the Menorah as we see it on the Arch bears
a strong Roman influence. The eagles are a well-known symbol of Roman sovereignty.
Dragons were a prevalent ornamental motif in Roman art. A similar base albeit
with more pagan images, was excavated in Didymus, Turkey where there once stood
a Roman temple.

These clues have led scholars to the almost unavoidable conclusion
that the disposition towards Roman art coupled with Jewish prohibition of pagan
images could be ascribed to one person, Herod, who throughout his appointment
as “King of Judea” tried to impose Hellenistic traditional concepts and values
upon his oppressed Jewish subjects.

If that was indeed the case, it is safe to assume then that the
Menorah plundered from the Temple was not the one that the Maccabees had
intended it to be following their rebellion, a symbol of religious freedom.
Rather, it was another attempt to suppress it. This might also be the reason
why the Menorah was not present on Jewish coins commemorating the Jewish rebellion
in 69-70 and 135. Other symbols from the Temple were used in its place.

Regardless of the changes and the origin of some of the details of
the Menorah, it has become a symbol of Jewish religious freedom and political sovereignty
and Jewish pride for the Eternal Jewish Homeland in Eretz Yisrael.

Tuesday, 10 July 2018

“The Hebrew language... is the only glue which holds
together our scattered bones. It also holds together the rings in the chain of time....
It binds us to those who built pyramids, to those who shed their blood on the
ramparts of Jerusalem, and to those who, at the burning stakes, cried Shema
Yisrael!”

I love languages. I speak six and teach three. These factors, I believe, have provided me
with a rather fair and objective way to study and evaluate the wisdom of
languages. Furthermore, it has given me a tool to better understand and more
greatly appreciate my own as the wise words of Johann Wolfgang van Goethe
lucidly articulated it: “He who knows no foreign language does not know his
own.”

Of course, everyone should love their
own language first. I do. I love Hebrew, the few millennia
old language of the Jewish People. I love it not merely because it is my
language and the language of my People that connects our Jewish past, present
and future as Y.L. Peretz suggested in the quote above. I love it because, I
found that of all the languages that I know and teach, Hebrew is, by far, one
of the most cogent and sensible.

And before anyone accuses me of being “an elitist” or being “biased,” please
allow me to explain.

Hebrew, one of the most ancient languages in the history of mankind, is based
on the root structure. What this means is that every word consists of basic three
letters (sometimes four). These three letters are called Shoresh (root).

Just like the root of a tree that spawns a stem and branches, so does the root
of a Hebrew word produce and create words (I understand that Latin is another
language, albeit classical, that utilizes root etymology). Similarly, just as a
root of a tree forms branches that are linked to it and resemble each other, so
does the root of Hebrew words help form
words that, in most cases, share a similar meaning and are hence related.

Let me expound on this unique attribute of Hebrew with a few examples.

Zachor זכור, which means remember, is a word almost
every Jewish person is familiar with. Remember is not only a word, it is a central
tenet in our Jewish culture, one that is an integral part of the DNA of the
Jewish People, past and present

To any non-Hebrew speaker, in this case, English speakers, some of these words
would seem unrelated. And this is where the magic of Hebrew comes into play. Ensuing
the logic that I tried to render above will help us see how these words are
related. The simple fact that they all share the same Shoresh implies that they
are related in their meaning, as I suggested above.

We can all agree that the English words: memory, remember, souvenir (which is
supposed to remind us of places and people) remnant (which refers to that
leftover that is supposed to remind us of something or someone) are related.

However, what do “male” and “secretary”
have to do with memory, or remember, you may ask.

Let us start with the easy part. A
secretary shares the same root of זכרbecause he/she
are expected to remember and remind their bosses of their schedule and other
important issues.

There are, though, two possible explanations
as to why the word “male” shares the same shoresh with “memory.” The first is
found in the Reuveni essay which compiles a collection of Midrashim (the sages’
interpretation of Jewish Holy Scriptures). There, we are told that G-d names
man “male” so that he can remember His Creator and his Commandments, for that
is what man was created for.

The second explanation can be discerned
through comparing semitic cultures.

In those cultures, the male was the
provider, the one who inherited the family assets, whose name was passed on to
posterity. That is how he was going to be remembered

No
wonder then that Hebrew is also called לשון הקודש”
(Leshon Hakodesh, the Holy language). קודש
(Kodesh) is derived from the shoresh ק ד ש which means to dedicate, to sanctify. It
is the language of Am Yisrael and the Jewish People, עם
קדוש (Am Kadosh, Holy nation) the ones who G-d sanctified and
dedicated to Himself.